To Remain or to Terminate? The Quest for Strategic Autonomy: An Autonomy Cost Model of Alliance Duration

What is it about?

Some argue that there are no crucial alliances in international relations after the cold war. However, even after the Cold-war era, many alliances were not terminated. There is a variance in the lifespan of alliances. Few previous studies have studied factors which can affect alliance duration. However, I found that these previous studies have focused on analyzing ‘security suppliers’ factors and reflecting their perspectives. They explain that if there are mutual threats between protégé and patrons, alliances can be formed; and if the mutual threats disappear, then the alliances are more likely to be terminated. The logic of fear of entrapment and fear of abandonment also can partially explain why alliances dissolve. However, this explanation is also strongly based on the decision-making process of the ‘security provider' or ‘patron’ side. I assume that alliances also can be terminated by the protégé’s decisions and their strategic interests. In other words, the demand side of security also should be added to explain alliance termination and alliance duration. In this paper, I argue that alliances are more likely to be dissolved when they undermine autonomy in a state (protégé)’s core security or military strategy. In this vein, I also insist that ‘strategic autonomy’ is a key factor in the termination of alliance. Alliances with ‘strategic autonomy constraints’ would not last longer than alliances which are not constrained by alliance’s obligations.

Featured Image